Thursday, 3 September 2015

Matthew chapter VII v. 1-5 worth a study I think especially by the so called recusants...

Extracts from the first letter of Fr Robert Brucciani as District Superior

He is  no doubt  well versed in the Chapter of Matthew referred to and also the notes about it in the Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture 

Where are we going?
Being made a superior is like being made the captain of a ship with a responsibility for bringing the ship, her crew, and her passengers safely to their destination. Before a journey can begin, consider first the end. What is the final end of our district, what is the final end of the Society of St. Pius X? Fortunately, our founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, made this very clear by giving us our constitutions (we call them The Statutes) which describe the essence of our Society and its end:

The Society of St Pius the X is a priestly society of common life without vows. The Society’s purpose is the priesthood and all that pertains to it and nothing but what concerns it.

The constitutions were approved by Bishop Charrière of Fribourg in 1970 and received an official letter of praise from Cardinal Wright who was the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy in 1971. Archbishop Lefebvre was always keen to point out that they were written in the spirit of the Church and with the approbation of the Church.

Forty five years later, the essence and purpose of the Society, remains unchanged. Our priestly society is devoted to the perfection and extension of the Catholic priesthood. More concretely, it is a society of priests, religious brothers, oblate sisters and third-order members devoted to the formation of holy priests. This then is the destination, the finality, the end of the District of Great Britain and Scandinavia. All our efforts should have this end in view; every decision we make should be measured by this end.

How do we get there?
The destination being clear, how do we get there? Fortunately, the route is also clearly described in our constitutions under the title, The Society’s Activities. In summary these are:

(i) To form holy priests in our own seminaries.
(ii) To help priests (whether members or not) sanctify themselves by retreats, recollections, priestly associations, third-orders and publications.
(iii) To encourage and develop auxiliaries in the service of the altar and other aspects of the priestly ministry (servers, sacristans, chorists, catechists, florists, church cleaners, tradesmen, professionals etc).
(iv) To assist or to run schools for the purpose of giving a thoroughly Christian education for vocations and for truly Catholic families.
(v) To run parishes and preach parish missions. 
(vi) To assist aged and infirm priests.

We have no seminary in the district, but there is no shortage of work to do to raise up vocations for the six international seminaries in the Society or for the many traditional Catholic communities around the world.

Over the next few months I will try to discover the treasures and the challenges of the district and shall pray and reflect at length upon how best to navigate the passage set out in The Statutes to reach our destination.

One thing is already clear: the best strategy in the world is worth nothing unless it is rooted in the Divine Will. If we would only become true apostles of Jesus and Mary — making them the centre of our lives — we should have all the help we need. An apostle of Jesus and Mary is one who resides in Their united hearts, desiring only what They desire, anchored like the ship between the two pillars in the dream of St. John Bosco. Mary will be our lighthouse, she will send us a heavenward breeze and she will be our pilot; she will keep us safe from the storm that buffets Holy Mother the Church and she will bring this ship, its crew and her passengers to their journey's end.

May God bless you all on the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

of interest see also

Thursday, 11 December 2014

A clash between Bishops - the Truth and a Lie

St. Peter martyr, Bishop of Alexandria and Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis also in Egypt.  (early third century AD)

This great Bishop was hailed as an excellent doctor of the Christian religion, admirable both for his skill in the sciences and profound knowledge of Holy scripture.  He succeeded to the See of Alexandria in the year 300 and governed for twelve years.  The nine last he suffered the fury of the Diocletian persecutions.  Virtue is tried and made perfect by sufferings and the fervour of our saint's piety and the rigor of his penances increased with the calamity of the church.  He never ceased begging of God for himself and his flock the necessary grace and courage, and exhorting them daily to die to their passions, that they might be prepared to die for Christ.  His watchfulness and care extended to all churches in Egypt and Libya.  Notwithstanding his charity and zeal, several in whom the love of the world prevailed basely betrayed their faith to escape torments and death.

Among those who fell none was more considerable that Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis.  That bishop was charged with several crimes but his apostasy was the main article alleged against him.  St Peter called a council where Meletius was convicted of having sacrificed to idols and other crimes, and sentence of deposition was passed against him.

The apostate had not humility enough to submit, or to seek the remedy of his deep wounds by condign repentance, but put himself at the head of a discontented party which appeared ready to follow him to any lengths. To justify his disobedience, and to impose upon men by pretending a holy zeal for discipline, he published many calumnies against St Peter and his council; and had the assurance to tell the world that he had left the archbishops communion, because he was too indulgent to the lapsed in receiving them too soon and too easily to communion.  Thus he formed a pernicious schism, which took its name from him and subsisted a hundred and fifty years.

Arius, who was then among the clergy at Alexandria gave signs of his pride and turbulence by espousing Meletius’s cause as soon as the breach was open.  The holy Bishop St Peter, by his knowledge of mankind, was convinced that pride, the source of uneasiness and inconstancy, had taken deep root in the heart of this unhappy man;  and that so long as this evil was not radically cured the wound of his soul was only skinned over by a pretended conversion, and would break out again with greater violence than ever.  He therefore excommunicated him, and could never be prevailed with to revoke the sentence.

Every clergyman is bound to be thoroughly acquainted with the great obligations of his state and profession; for it is one of the general and most just rules of canon law, and even of the law of nature, that “No man is excused from a fault by the ignorance in things which, by his office he is bound to know”

Butlers lives of the Saints  published by Virtue 1949

Sunday, 14 September 2014



Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5].

There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24].

Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'

 We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52].

 Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior.

 Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government of the world itself.

In effect according to the testimony of infallible truth it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to condemn it  if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest.

Therefore, if the terrestrial powersThe spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: '

Site Meter

Monday, 4 August 2014

indeed we should remember this anniversary that is filled with burning sorrow...

we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the commencement of WW1 by making available a database of winners of the Victoria Cross who were Catholic.

Friday, 31 January 2014

Recuscany I think Not! rather the name is dishonoured

A true definition of a recusant is given below.  Those dissenters from SSPX led by a former bishop of the Society dishonour the name of recusant.  Whatever you think Bishop Fellay may do -  so far the Society remains in safe and sure hands.  

One of the Roman Catholics in England who incurred legal and social penalties in the 16th century and afterward for refusing to attend services of the Church of England.
2. A dissenter; a nonconformist.

My dear friends, 

The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below, especially through the corruption of the Holy Mass which is both the splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the Cross - Regnavit a Ligno Deus - and the source of the extension of His kingdom over souls and over societies. Hence the absolute need appears obvious of ensuring the permanency and continuation of the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that "His Kingdom come." The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought the corruption of the priesthood and the universal decadence of Faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

God raised up the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for the maintenance and perpetuity of His glorious and expiatory Sacrifice within the Church. He chose Himself some true priests instructed in and convinced of these divine mysteries. God bestowed upon me the grace to prepare these Levites and to confer upon them the grace of the priesthood for the continuation of the true Sacrifice according to the definition of the Council of Trent.

This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the Liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls. That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circumstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.

The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.

I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all Churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this Faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come.

Finally, I beseech you to remain attached to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, to remain profoundly united amongst yourselves, in submission to the Society's Superior General, in the Catholic Faith of all time, remembering the words of St. Paul to the Galatians (1:8-9): "But even if we or an angel from heaven were to teach you a different gospel from the one we have taught you, let him be anathema."

As we have said before, now again I say: "if anyone teaches you a different gospel from what you have received, let him be anathema." My dear friends, be my consolation in Christ Jesus, remain strong in the Faith, faithful to the true Sacrifice of the Mass, to the true and holy priesthood of Our Lord for the triumph and glory of Jesus in heaven and upon earth, for the salvation of souls, for the salvation of my own soul.

In the hearts of Jesus and Mary I embrace you and bless you. Your father in Christ Jesus,

+ Marcel Lefebvre, feast of St Augustine 29 August 1987.

Extracts from an interview with Bishop Fellay 2009

...There is a question of principle here: we have a hard time with Rome. It is still the same problem today. I said to Cardinal Castrillon last year and this year exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1987: If you want us, you must respect out identity. If you want us to change our identity, it won’t work. Our Lord Jesus Christ is truly Lord. The phrase “Our Lord” means something. He is King because He is God and because all power on heaven and earth was given to Him, even as man. This is a point of faith. There are consequences to ideas like the Kingship of Christ. But if you begin to say, “Well, the State and social life have nothing to do with God. We don’t care about Our Lord,” where is the Kingship of Christ? If He is King, He cares about His powers and He wants them to be observed. This is also a point of faith: we know that every soul appears in front of the Judge, to whom they must give account. This Judge is Our Lord Jesus Christ, the King, not only of Catholics, but of everyone, including heads of State, be they kings or presidents. They will have to give an account of what they have done with their powers entrusted to them by our heavenly King. Even if we have to wait for years, we won’t change the Faith.

Archbishop Lefebvre pray for us

Sunday, 6 October 2013

Let us love the Angels

At least I will declare in these pages that you are all-amiable, all loving, and alas, very little loved. I will cry aloud to all who read “Come ye and join in love and devotion to the angels”

Love the angels; they are friends pre-eminently faithful, powerful advocates and protectors, most wise masters, fathers, brothers, all filled with love for us. They are the patrons, protectors, and advocates of all men without distinction, of every sate and of every class.

 Love the angels, ye apostolic men; they are the heavenly missionaries of Paradise.

 Love the angels, ye preachers and doctors, for they are the adepts in heavenly science, and in the ravishing  eloquence of eternity.

 Love the angels, ye who are the priests of the Lord; it is by their hands that the Sacrifice is offered to the divine majesty.

 Love the angels ye who dwell in the retirement of cloisters, or in the seclusion of solitude; these admirable spirits are always retired in God, and always behold His face.

 Love the angels, ye who appear in public, who live amidst the world; these pure Intelligences abide there  with you.

 Love the angels, ye married persons; the example of the holy Archangel Raphael, who conducted Tobias, admirably displays the care they take of your state.

 Love the angels, ye widows and orphans; for none may be compared to them in the charitable help they give  to those who need.

Love the angels, O virgins – yes I repeat it, love the angels with fervour, O ye virgins they are the great friends of virginity; nay they are its admirers, beholding this precious treasure in fragile vessels, and creatures so weak living on earth as they themselves live in heaven.

 Love the angels, O ye just; they are the guides of holiness.

 Love the angels, O ye sinners; they are for you a sure refuge.

 Love the angels, O ye who are afflicted, who are poor and in misery; they are the consolation and resource of all who sorrow.

 Love the angels , ye rich and powerful, ye great ones of this world; these are the heavenly luminaries who will enlighten you to see that all which passes is contemptible and that you should sigh only after a blessed eternity.

Yes O men!

 Love the Seraphim; they are the princes of pure love.
 Love the Cherubim; they are the great doctors of the science of the saints.
 Love the Thrones; they are the patrons of true repose of soul and tranquil peace of heart.
 Love the Dominations; they will teach you to become masters of yourself and of all things, raising you above all created beings by an intimate union with the creator.
 Love the Virtues; they are the masters of the way of holy perfection.
 Love the Powers; they are your defenders against the malice, the rage, and the power of the devils.
 Love the Principalities; it is they who watch so diligently over the welfare of kingdoms, states, and those who govern.
 Love the Archangels; for they are zealous for the common good, and we receive at their hands benefits without number in provinces, towns and villages, and in every part of the world.
 Love in fine the angels of the last choir (Guardian angels) they are stars whose celestial influences we feel the more often because they are nearer to us, watching over the good of each one of us in particular with an ineffable love and care. Henceforth let our love be as of fire for these pure flames of love empyreal, and let us never cease from loving those who are never weary of doing us good, and loading us with every favour.

  Devotion to the Nine Choirs of Angels - Henry Marie Boudin 1869.

Monday, 15 April 2013

Fr Dudley continued

These facts presented me with a quandary which appeared insurmountable, and which remained insurmountable. I have often been asked, since my conversion, how, in view of them, Anglican clergy can be sincere in remaining where they are. My reply has been — they ARE sincere. There is a state of mental blindness in which one is incapable of seeing the plain logic of facts. I only know that it was over a year before I acted on those facts myself. And I honestly believe I was sincere during that period. Only those who have been Protestants can appreciate the thick veil of prejudice, fear, and mistrust of "Rome" which hampers every groping toward the truth. It was about this time that there fell into my hands a book written by a Catholic priest, who himself had once been an Anglican clergyman, who had been faced by the same difficulties, and who had found the solution of them in the Catholic Church.

"But the Catholic Church CAN'T be the solution," I said. And there rose before my mind a vision of all I had been taught about her from my boyhood upward — her false teaching, her corruptions of the doctrines of Christ. The Catholic Church, though, was the church of the overwhelming majority of Christians, and always had been. If what I had been taught was true, then for nearly two thousand years the great mass of Christians had been deluded and deceived by lies. Could Christ have allowed a hoax, an imposture of that magnitude? In His name? The Catholic Church was either an imposture or — Or what?

I began to buy Catholic books. To study Catholic doctrines. To read history from the Catholic standpoint. The day came when I sat looking into the fire asking myself: "Is what the world says of the Catholic Church true? Or what the Catholic Church says of herself? Have I all these years been shaking my fist at a phantom of my own imagining, fed on prejudice and ignorance?" I compared her unity with the complete lack of it outside. Her authority with the absence of anything approaching real authority in the church of which I was a member and a minister. The unchangeable moral code she proclaimed with the wavering, shilly-shallying moral expediency that Protestantism allowed. She began to look so very much more like the church that God would have made, just as the Established Church began to look so very much more like the church that man would have made.

When I was passing Westminster Cathedral one day I went in and knelt for half an hour before the Blessed Sacrament. I came out terribly shaken — spiritually shaken. It is impossible to describe; but in that short half hour what, until now, I had contemplated as a problem had suddenly assumed an aspect of imperativeness. A problem that had to be solved, not played with. For within those four walls there had loomed up before my spiritual vision an immensity, a vast reality, before which everything else had shrunk away. The church whose clergyman I was seemed to have slipped from under my feet. I returned to the East End dazed. That night amongst the hoppers I felt like a stranger moving about. I went about for weeks in a state of uncertainty, undecided in my conscience as to whether I was morally bound to face things out or not — wretched under the suspicion that what "Rome" said might be true — that I was no priest; that my "Mass" was no Mass at all; that I was genuflecting before . . . ? That my "absolutions" were worthless. The more I prayed about it, the more unreal my ministry appeared.

I decided to consult a certain very "extreme" clergyman, whom I believed to be sincere beyond question (as he was), and a man of deep spiritual piety. I had three or four talks with him in all, the general result of which was to leave me more confused intellectually than ever, but spiritually more at peace; though it took me months before I realized that this peace was a false one, and that I had shelved the matter not from its intellectual difficulties, but for worldly reasons. For those talks had opened for me an unpleasant vista of what might happen if I went "over to Rome" — the loss of my position, my salary, friends and all; not only the burning of all my boats but the wounding of my mother and father cruelly. Even more, "Rome" might not accept me for her priesthood; in any case it would be starting all over again, possibly from baptism. (In this last, I was completely mistaken. Whatever else, Anglicans, or Episcopalians as they are known in America, administer a valid Baptism.) If she did not want me for a priest, I should have to . . . My whole being revolted against the prospect. It was impossible — such a demand. I had been carried away by my emotions. It was a snare of Satan. I should be a traitor to the church of my baptism. God had placed me here in the Church of England. He was blessing my work as its minister. He had given me endless graces. I buried myself in that work again, and for a time succeeded in forgetting, or at least stifling, the fears that had been my torment — until the haphazard remark of a photographer (registering my features), an agnostic, I believe, opened my eyes to my inability honestly to defend the Established Church’s position; it was to the effect that if Christianity were true, obviously the Roman Catholic Church, with her authority, was right. It was the testimony of a man who had no axe to grind.

A Jewish dentist made the same remark in effect to me shortly afterward. The man in the street testified the same with his: "If I were religious, I'd be a Roman Catholic." Whether it was the photographer or not, my fears were released once more from their repression, abruptly and acutely, and this time I resolved that it should be a fight to the finish, either way — that no worldly or material considerations should interfere. The clergyman whom I had consulted had already made one thing clear in my mind — that the issue between Rome and Canterbury, the crux of the whole problem, was the claim of Rome to be the infallible teaching authority appointed by God, and the denial by Canterbury of that claim.

The whole question boiled down to the question of infallibility, and on that everything else hung. I entered upon an intensive study of the point. I read the history of the doctrine, the Fathers and the Councils of the Church, and what they had to say; examined its rationality. At the end of some months I came to this conclusion — that, as far as Holy Scripture, history, and reason were concerned, the Catholic Church could prove her claim to be God’s infallible teacher up to the hilt. It is difficult after all these years to recapture the exact mode of its appeal to my reason; but it was the appeal that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church inevitably presents to any man who is prepared to lay aside bias, prejudice, and preconceptions. I will try to state it in the fewest words possible. Infallibility is the only guarantee we have that the Christian religion is true. Actually, if I, at this moment, did not believe in an infallible teacher appointed by God then nothing on earth would induce me to believe in the Christian religion.

If, as outside the Catholic Church, Christian doctrines are a matter of private judgment, and therefore the Christian religion a mere matter of human opinion, then there is no obligation upon any living soul to believe in it. Why should I stake my immortal soul upon human opinion? For that is all you have if you refuse the infallible Church. In itself her claim may be reduced to this: the Catholic Church, when she defines a doctrine of faith or morals, when she tells us what to believe and what to do — in a word, what the Christian religion is — then, and then only, she is prevented by God from making a mistake, from teaching untruth. The Church is God’s mouthpiece — His voice. Could God's voice speak untruth?

Protestantism, claiming the Holy Ghost and presenting a jumble of contradictions, declares, in effect, that God DOES speak untruth. And only blinded reason prevents its adherents from seeing and admitting that unpalatable fact. Sanity alone should compel every thinking man to halt before the Catholic Church’s very claim. It is commonly assumed that submission to an infallible authority in religion involves slavery, that Catholics cannot think for themselves, that their reason is stifled, that they commit intellectual suicide. "No educated man could accept the medieval dogmas of the Catholic Church." Examined in the light of horse sense and human reason, that shibboleth of the modernist leaders is revealed in all its naked stupidity, as an irrational and unscientific piece of snobbery for gulling the masses and blinding them to the claims of the Catholic Church.

In intent, since the dogmas are the same today, it means: "No educated man could submit to what the Catholic Church claims to be infallibly true": or, more simply, "No educated man could submit to infallibility in the matter of religion." For acceptance involves submission to the one Church that claims it. The obvious reply is: "In the name of all that is sane — why not?" When in every other department of life he is submitting to infallible truth already? Is slavery involved; is reason stifled; is it intellectual suicide to submit to the infallible truth of the law of gravity; do men jump off cliffs on the chance of going up instead of down? To submit, as every scientist does, to the fixed data of science, believing them to be infallibly true; could he be a scientist at all, if he refused to submit? To submit, as every educated man does, by eating, to the infallible truth that the human body needs food? To submit, even if he was not there and never saw it, to the infallible truth of the Great War? To submit, as every mathematician does, to the multiplication table? To the axioms of Euclid? To submit, as every honest businessman does, to the infallible principles of business honesty? As all businessmen do to the infallible requirements to conduct a business at all? Were a businessman to conduct his business as the modernists conduct their religion, he would close down as the modernists have closed down Christianity for themselves and their adherents.

Examples could be multiplied to show that in every department of life every rational being is already submitting to infallible truth. Is it rational or irrational to proclaim that no educated man could submit in the hundredth case, that of religion, when he submits in the other ninety-nine? On the face of it the rationality lies with those who submit in the hundredth and most vital case of all. Is it a sign of education to submit to human opinions in preference to the revealed truths of God, who Himself declared that they were to be taught and accepted or refused under pain of eternal damnation? To prefer the negations of modernism to the dogmas of the Church that must teach infallibly if she teaches Christianity, i.e., the revealed truths of God? Of the Church that must be infallible when she teaches truth, since truth is an infallible thing? When, as far as reason was concerned, I was satisfied as to the unique claim of Rome, upon which all else depended, I decided to present my case for no longer remaining in the Church of England to one or two prominent scholars among its clergy.

I did so. As far as I can recollect, the "refutation” given me made no impression whatever. Though easily my superiors in scholarship, I had sufficient knowledge and logic to perceive that the great chain of scriptural and historical evidence for the Catholic claim remained unbroken by excerpts from St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, and others, conveniently interpreted according to the will of the reader and not to the mind of the author. It is little less than amazing to me now that scholars of repute should endeavor to counter the vast weight of evidence against them with what they themselves must in honesty admit is the less likely interpretation — to fit the rock to the pebble rather than the pebble to the rock. To my case for leaving a church which was so plainly devoid, in view of its contradictions, of any divine teaching authority, I received no valid answer at all. Every conceivable "argumentum ad hominem" was presented; sentiment, "Roman fever," "intellectual suicide," treachery to the "church of my baptism," "corruptions of Rome," the whole well-worn gamut of objections was paraded. I had read them all, though, already and found them untrue. The great facts about the Catholic Church were left standing — unassailable. And those facts demanded submission. I have been asked again and again, since I became a Catholic, why I left the Church of England, and often the implication behind the question, if not actually expressed, has been that my motive for doing so could not have been based on reason.

There is a prevalent idea that converts to Rome are in some mysterious manner "got hold of" or "caught" by "Roman priests." I would like to assure any non-Catholic who may happen to read this that converts are not "got hold of" or "caught." In my own case I had rarely even spoken to a "Roman priest," before, of my own free will and with my reason already convinced, I went to consult one at the London Oratory. It is true that in doing so I was still full of Protestant suspicion and imagined that he would be extremely gratified to "get hold of" a real live Anglican clergyman; I should make a splendid "catch." The priest in question received me most calmly. He showed no sign of excitement; he did not stand on his head or caper about. He did not even appear to regard me as a particularly good "catch." He answered my questions and invited me to come again, if I cared to, but no more. I left, feeling several sizes smaller. I learned many things, however, from that interview. It was so entirely different from the interviews with the Anglican scholars. For the priest there was no difficult case to bolster up. Not a single question that I put to him presented "difficulties." There were no awkward corners to get around. I believe his candidness about the human side of the Catholic Church almost startled me.

Never once was he on the defence. All that I had been groping toward so painfully and laboriously was so obvious to him as to leave me wondering how it could ever have not been obvious to myself. I realized, too, from that interview that "going over to Rome" would be very much more than stepping out of a small boat onto an Atlantic liner. It would be no less than coming into the kingdom of God on earth — and the Catholic Church was that kingdom of God. I was not coming in on my own terms, but on hers. I was not conferring a privilege upon her; she was conferring an inestimable privilege upon me. I was not going to make myself a Catholic, the Catholic Church was going to make me one. There would be a formal course of instruction, a real testing of my faith, and finally, a real submission to a living authority — the living authority of God on earth.